Is he arrested? He's carrying legally, and he just stopped a massacre. Is he sued? For what? Stopping the massacre is an overwhelming defense.

Practically speaking, when someone is legally armed, what can be done to them? How can any charges or lawsuits stand? In other words, what practical power does any corporate policy have that deprives people of the right to self-defense, while providing no corporate lethal defense for those disarmed people?

What would be happening, right now, to such a citizen if the Aurora perp was wounded or dead, right now, because he was shot in the theater by that armed citizen and thereby stopped from going any further than he did?

Violating the posted signs denies permission to be on the private property. You are now guilty of trespassing; I believe it is automatically bumped up so long as there is a posted sign at each entrance to misdemeanor trespass, and carries a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail as the penalty.

Shooting someone while in commission of a crime (such as trespass) strips the legal shield of self defense. Not only can the theater sue you for damages, but so can the perp’s family (assuming you put the damn dog down..) as well as any patron present.

So, yeah, you'd likely end up in handcuffs and in the back of a cruiser if you had been there and successfully defended all those people. And it probably would have been just reported as a sudden fire when someone opened up the perp’s door (with possibly a theory of there being a meth lab in the apartment..)

10
posted on 07/24/2012 6:24:41 PM PDT
by kingu
(Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)

Unfortunately, I believe that s/he would be arrested if in a “weapons-free” zone because he or she would have violated the premises restriction of no weapons permitted. And given todays hatred for real knights in shining armor (NO offense whatever meant) - and by that I mean real men - the would-be defender of life would probably be given a bit of time to serve to think about and reconsider his actions of life-saving heroism.

There is no Colorado law against carrying there. If they saw you carrying they could ask you to leave and call the cops and charge you with trespass if you refused to leave. I live in Colorado and take the “leave if asked” approach, but no one ever noticed my CCW. If I had been there I would have been carrying or I would have complied when asked to leave. Federal buildings, courthouses with metal detectors and airports past the security checkpoints are exceptions.

13
posted on 07/24/2012 6:33:53 PM PDT
by MtnClimber
(To the left wrong is right, down is up and backward is "Forward")

Violating the posted signs denies permission to be on the private property. You are now guilty of trespassing... Shooting someone while in commission of a crime (such as trespass) strips the legal shield of self defense.

Which would put this interpretation on denial of rights up under intense public scrutiny, if many lives were saved that otherwise would have been lost.

Because the "permission" would have consisted of a business transaction that accepted money and gave an implied agreement of protection that was not provided by the corporation. While signs were up barring weapons, no sign or notice existed that the corporation would not provide protection against murderous intent or other criminal acts while simultaniously denying 2A rights to it's paying patrons.

The extreme imbalance of such an agreement, when one side directly profited financially, would create an intense examination of contract limits compared to natural rights in quasi-public business environments - where civilians known to be unskilled in self-defense and stripped of weapons were exposed to a reasonable possibility of lethal danger, and a balance of protective power was specifically not provided by the corporate party.

And if that lethal danger possibility was not formerly considered to be reasonable in theaters, it sure as hell is now.

In Texas you will lose your CCW if you enter a posted establishment (and get caught). I never do business in a store that posts. They don’t need my money. However Jorge Zimmerman is finding out what will happen to you when the King’s justice dept gets involved. Good thing in Texas most places don’t post signs. Good pro-gun culture.

18
posted on 07/24/2012 6:45:04 PM PDT
by JohnD9207
(Mitt better grow a pair or this thing will be over soon.)

A firefight inside an auditorium isn’t going to solve the problem. If anything, twice the number of casualties would have arisen from rounds penetrating the walls into the adjacent theaters, while perhaps half the number caused directly by the criminal.

The armed might feel more secure and in control, but not necessarily preventing less casualties. Those with more sane minds are more likely to control the results, if they are armed.

19
posted on 07/24/2012 6:45:21 PM PDT
by Cvengr
(Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)

I guess what I’m getting at is that for any disarmament contract to be viable, it seems to me that an equal assurance of protection must be made towards the disarmed.

The actual reality of what companies are now getting away with is saying, “you agree to pay for our services and risk getting shot to death by a maniac while doing it, while we agree to take your money and let the maniac shoot you while stopping you from defending yourself.”

Now, if that contract is still considered valid, then why are there signs up banning guns? Shouldn’t there also be equally large signs ups addressing the other side of the same issue, i.e. signs banning guns, AND signs reminding patrons that they agree to be shot by gun-wielding criminals?

Reason being is that if the ONLY place that guns were banned was in the rest of the fine-print on the ticket, it wouldn’t be enough of a legal warning - right? Otherwise, why bother with the big signs banning guns in addition to the fine print saying the same thing on the ticket?

BUT, since banning guns makes the patrons directly liable to death by crime, with no allowed method of self-defense by the corporation, shouldn’t THAT also be put up in large print on signs along with the gun ban signs? Don’t patrons have a right to be reminded that they are risking the lives of their families and children, and are surrendering their right to self-defense in case a murder starts slaughtering them, and that that is what they are agreeing to when they pay for their ticket?

And WITHOUT such a specific reminder, is the contract valid, since it is merely “presuming” violent death i understood to be the risk, rather than guaranteeing that people KNOW that that is the risk?

Contract must be understood on both sides - that’s the root of contract law. Big gun-ban signs imply nig notice must be made of this issue, yet big agreement-to-die-like-sheep signs are not available to make clear the other side of the contract.

A man carrying illegally - without a CCW, had he stopped the attack with a well placed shot might be afoul of the law and might lose his firearm to the police but it would be highly likely that a jury would find him innocent and more likely that after a little public righteousness the charges would be simply dropped.

My understanding is that the theater shooter was standing in front of the screen so no one was behind him. A CCW is responsible for knowing what may be hit behind the crimminal. But, if I am in the front row and this guy walks right up to me, you can bet I am taking the shot right there. If it is other people, I would have to carefully consider. Unarmed people that chose that condition are not my responsibility, but I might help if I had a clear shot. There are so many situations like battered spouse incidents where a CCW could think they are saving a victim only to have the victim turn on them.

27
posted on 07/24/2012 6:59:05 PM PDT
by MtnClimber
(To the left wrong is right, down is up and backward is "Forward")

A firefight inside an auditorium isnt going to solve the problem. If anything, twice the number of casualties would have arisen from rounds penetrating the walls into the adjacent theaters, while perhaps half the number caused directly by the criminal.

This is the argument of a coward, pretending to be logical. To throw out the inhibitory effect on a mass murderer being shot at while trying to kill people is idiotic. To throw out the intelligence and focus of patrons focusing their weapons on the murderer is beyond insulting. To speculate about pretended wild bullets, generalize the absurdity, and then draw a conclusion leaving the only "safe" way to handle the situation to sit there and let yourself, your family and frieds absorb bullets so they don't become strays and hit someone else, deserves horsewhipping.

That you are then argung for craven cowardice for entire populations to crawl before murderers is a social crime so vast, hell will have to be expanded to receive your wretched soul.

I hope I was clear that we will never be on the same page at the end of the day.

I’d be more than happy to go before a jury on such a trespassing charge.

If a jury of my peers can’t see that I prevented dozens if not hundreds of deaths and injuries by my unselfish actions in the defense of others, then I’m really missing the point of having juries at all.

31
posted on 07/24/2012 7:01:06 PM PDT
by DNME
(Tired of being polite about it? Time for action? Reawaken the Sons of Liberty!)

Texas has very clear sign requirements, the 30-06 sign requirements, that a business must post. Colorado has no requirements. There are shopping malls that my wife likes to go to that are supposed to be no carry zones per Rocky Mountain Gun Owners web site. I have looked and never saw a sign. Maybe it is stuck on the bottom of a filing cabinet in the mall offices.

33
posted on 07/24/2012 7:04:14 PM PDT
by MtnClimber
(To the left wrong is right, down is up and backward is "Forward")

As I understand it, in WV, you can be asked to leave the premises or check your weapon. If you refuse, then you can be charged with trespassing. My guess is, if you are not asked to do either one, then the business owner doesn’t have a leg to stand on, even in the event that something happens, since you have to be asked to leave or check your firearm first.

“Any person carrying or possessing a firearm or other deadly weapon on the property of another who refuses to temporarily relinquish possession of such firearm or other deadly weapon, upon being requested to do so, or to leave such premises, while in possession of such firearm or other deadly weapon, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or confined in the county jail not more than six months, or both.”

If there is no confrontation, there can be no violation. A sign is not, for purposes of the law, considered a confrontation.

I am not a lawyer, but this is the assumption under which I carry in WV...I’d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

37
posted on 07/24/2012 7:24:49 PM PDT
by FLAMING DEATH
(Are you better off than you were $4 trillion ago?)

The police do not charge you, they arrest you based on their understanding of the law.

The city/county/state attorney general charges you at their discretion. These are likely three different people.

Since these guys are elected by the people it stands to reason for someone who just saved 10’s of lives (read voters) any minor non-self aggrandizing indiscretion by the permit holder who stopped the mutt would likely be overlooked.

Ask yourself; how unpopular would the guy be who charged the savior??

(not an attorney and don’t play one on TV either)
YMMV

42
posted on 07/24/2012 7:40:56 PM PDT
by GOPBiker
(Thank a veteran, with a smile, every chance you get. You do more good than you can know.)

I’m sitting here imagining maybe a third of the theater-goers carrying (in defiance of the theater’s rules)... little James comes in the door, raises his firearm/s, and 75 armed movie-goers pull out their pistols and blow him away.

I like this ending better than what happened. And I think I would be OK with being banned for life from that theater, too.

Why is it that ALL -- and I mean ALL -- conservative talk show scenarios (or articles like this one) assume that a potential showdown 'tween a shooter & a permit loaded-weapon carriers would come down to a one-on-one Old West style shootout?

Ridiculous.

It'd be just as likely that in some places, you could have... ...one shooter & 2-4 permit loaded-weapon carriers

Or you might have -- like with Columbine... ...two shooters... ...and multiple permit loaded-weapon carriers...

Add to that a dark theater with tear gas going off...

And you could easily get two guys with permits shooting @ each other -- because they might assume two shooters...

"Violating the posted signs denies permission to be on the private property. You are now guilty of trespassing; I believe it is automatically bumped up so long as there is a posted sign at each entrance to misdemeanor trespass, and carries a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail as the penalty."

I love Missouri's conceal and carry law -

(15) Any private property whose owner has posted the premises as being off-limits to concealed firearms by means of one or more signs displayed in a conspicuous place of a minimum size of eleven inches by fourteen inches with the writing thereon in letters of not less than one inch. The owner, business or commercial lessee, manager of a private business enterprise, or any other organization, entity, or person may prohibit persons holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying concealed firearms on the premises and may prohibit employees, not authorized by the employer, holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying concealed firearms on the property of the employer. If the building or the premises are open to the public, the employer of the business enterprise shall post signs on or about the premises if carrying a concealed firearm is prohibited. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises. An employer may prohibit employees or other persons holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying a concealed firearm in vehicles owned by the employer;

Now what is the penalty for violating number 15? Read on -

2. Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises. If such person refuses to leave the premises and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for the first offense. If a second citation for a similar violation occurs within a six-month period, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed two hundred dollars and his or her endorsement to carry concealed firearms shall be suspended for a period of one year. If a third citation for a similar violation is issued within one year of the first citation, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars and shall have his or her concealed carry endorsement revoked and such person shall not be eligible for a concealed carry endorsement for a period of three years.

So if you leave peacefully and no summons is issued, no crime is committed.

Would you rather be home safe with your family, or even in jail, contemplating the mess you are in; OR would you rather you & your family be in the morgue contemplating NOTHING?

Obviously, by the way the laws are written, the gov't would rather you DIE in a massacre than defend yourself with a gun. Whether you accept this is up to you! I refer you to the Declaration of Independence for guidance.

47
posted on 07/24/2012 8:00:35 PM PDT
by Mister Da
(The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)

"A firefight inside an auditorium isnt going to solve the problem. If anything, twice the number of casualties would have arisen from rounds penetrating the walls into the adjacent theaters, while perhaps half the number caused directly by the criminal."

"This is the argument of a coward, pretending to be logical. To throw out the inhibitory effect on a mass murderer being shot at while trying to kill people is idiotic. To throw out the intelligence and focus of patrons focusing their weapons on the murderer is beyond insulting. To speculate about pretended wild bullets, generalize the absurdity, and then draw a conclusion leaving the only "safe" way to handle the situation to sit there and let yourself, your family and frieds absorb bullets so they don't become strays and hit someone else, deserves horsewhipping.

That you are then argung for craven cowardice for entire populations to crawl before murderers is a social crime so vast, hell will have to be expanded to receive your wretched soul.

I hope I was clear that we will never be on the same page at the end of the day."

Bottom line tho of my comment: People at least need to get their "what would I do" scenarios out of the fantasyland of the Old West...As more & more people carry...such scenarios will more likely be triangular (or more) vs. a shootout @ the OK corral.

And the more where there's mass confusion (& poor visibility) the worst those situations can turn out.

The shooter is taken out by a permit carrier, who is then taken out by a permit carrier, who is then taken out by a permit carrier.

All of a sudden, you've got THREE murderers-manslaughterers up for prosecution vs. one.

In Arizona, you COULD be charged with a misdemeanor-level criminal trespass. You probably wouldn’t be arrested if you agreed to leave, but the owner has the option. The sign is considered your notification to leave (or not enter).

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.